Bill Simpich's State Secret

[Bill Simpich]

I don't know if Quiroga was at the center of things on 11/22, but I do know that when Quiroga was finally questioned during the

HSCA hearings, he was well prepared. Too bad his questioner was not. Quiroga had his lawyer with him, and nothing was learned

during that interview.

[Thomas Graves]

%

Edited August 19, 2014 by Thomas Graves

[Thomas Graves]

%

Well that was nice. I made one final simple edit and the whole thing disappeared.

Edited August 19, 2014 by Thomas Graves

[Thomas Graves]

Here's the links to Chapter 3 and the earlier chapters - all feedback is greatly appreciated.

Chapter 3: The Cuban Compound in Mexico City Was Ground Zero of my new book State Secret: Wiretapping in Mexico City, Double Agents, and the Framing of Lee Oswald is now available for reading online at MFF.

Chapter 3 focuses on the war on Cuba during 1963, CIA efforts to kill Castro and recruit Cuban government officials, and how Castro effectively used double agents to ward off American plans to assassinate him and wage a coup d'etat.

State Secret is being serialized a chapter at a time, with a new chapter appearing approximately weekly. Over the coming several weeks, the full book will become available online. All donations to MFF greatly appreciated.

Read Chapter 3: The Cuban Compound in Mexico City Was Ground Zero

See also previously-published chapters:

Preface

Chapter 1: The Double Dangle

Chapter 2: Three Counterintelligence Teams Watched Oswald

Bill,

I like your theories, and I must say that you do a good job of supporting them with pertinent documentary evidence.

I like the idea that although Oswald might have been sent to Russia by US intelligence, he may have gone to Russia on his own (I'm thinking that he wanted to be a double or triple agent). Regardless of his motives, it makes sense that Oswald was closely monitored by both the KGB and the CIA while he was there. It also stands to reason that he was used by the CIA as a U-2 info-based "dangle," and in conjunction with "defector" Robert Webster, a man whom he facially resembled (at least from certain angles) and whose biometrics were apparently assigned to Oswald to create "marked cards" for the Mole Hunt.

It's fascinating that a probable result of this was the DPD's being unintentionally supplied with Webster's approximate height and weight and age on 11/22/63, which the DPD then broadcast to its officers to help them in their ostensible search for JFK's killer.

One minor point I'd like to make, and it's obviously no criticism of you, is the interesting fact that the following document says that no derogatory information about Oswald was found in his Marine Corps files right after he defected in 1959. It makes no mention of the fact that he was court martialed twice while stationed in Japan. But maybe they were just looking for more serious, "national security" type behaviors or offenses.

http://www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archive/viewer/showDoc.do?docId=117797&relPageId=260

So, I'm with you and support you.

What you've said elsewhere about Goodpastures' creating the fraudulent Mystery Man = Oswald situation and creating and disseminating different Oswald "marked cards" in her attempt to determine who had penetrated LIENVOY (as evidenced by the impersonation of Oswald and Duran on September 28, 1963) makes sense, too.

I suppose the biggest compliment I can give you is that what you've written helps to me to understand the implications of Newman's Oswald and the CIA.

--Tommy

Here's an excellent article on Webster and Oswald by Gary Hill in The Fourth Decade:

http://www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archive/viewer/showDoc.do?docId=48688&relPageId=49

re-bumped

Here's a photo of blonde, Oswald look-alike Robert E. Webster from his 1946 Pennsylvania high school yearbook. Webster defected to Russia two weeks before Oswald did. From Greg Parker's reopenjfkcase website.

This is Webster returning to the U.S., once again making the big move two weeks before Oswald. From oswaldsmother website.

And there's a 1962 newspaper article viewable elsewhere on the Internet which has a closeup photo of Webster's face which intentionally makes him look like LHO, IMHO.

Just thinking --

1) Wouldn't it be something if Webster was the guy who impersonated LHO in Mexico City?

2) I've read in a CIA document that Webster was a Quaker. I wonder if he knew Ruth Paine?

--Tommy

Edited August 21, 2014 by Thomas Graves

[Robert Howard]

On March 24, 2006, Herbert Manell passed away, although I cannot say with certitude, I am curious as to if he is the same person cited in State Secret Chapter 3.

http://www.faqs.org/people-search/manell/

FWIW

more

Birth: Sep. 15, 1925
Death: Mar. 24, 2006 Note:
TEC4 US ARMY
Burial:
Arlington National Cemetery
Arlington
Arlington County
Virginia, USA
Plot: Sec: 8-N2 ROW 11, Site: 4
Created by: John C. Anderson
Record added: Mar 06, 2010
Find A Grave Memorial# 49253426
http://www.findagrave.com/cgi-bin/fg.cgi?page=gr&GSln=Manell&GSfn=Herb&GSbyrel=all&GSdyrel=all&GSob=n&GRid=49253426&df=all&

[Paul Brancato]

Now that I have read State Secrets I thought it worthwhile to try to get this thread going again. Hopefully Thomas and Steven will avoid diverting it. They have different but interesting points to make. I also hope Bill Simpich checks in here once in a while, as I mainly want to ask him to clarify and possibly debate his point that Morales ran the assassination without the knowledge of Harvey, Shackley, Phillips, and others higher in the chain of command of CIA like King, Angleton, Dulles, etc.

if I understand Simpich correctly, he thinks that were Phillips involved in hijacking Oswald from covert anti-FPCC operations and helping to set him up as the patsy he would have taken more precautions after the assassination, as he left plenty of clues that might have made him a suspect. Simpich also claimed that In his opinion the most likely suspect to have hijacked Oswald and set him up was Morales, claiming that Morales was experienced enough to know that CIA would cover his tracks rather than risk exposing Mexico City covert surveillance and wiretapping of the Cuban and Soviet embassies and their staffs. I would argue that if anyone knew how to play the system it was Phillips. Wouldn't he likewise have known that he was in no danger of exposure for the same reasons as Morales?

The reason I think this an important question, and thread, is that Simpich has made a very good case for the direct involvement of a cast of CIA and Mafia characters directly related to Operation 40, but seems to think that the operation was basically rogue. In the world of spy craft deniability is built into the system. Not finding adequate proof of orders from Shackley or Harvey or Dulles or Helms, and finding plenty of reasons to doubt their involvement, doesn't prove, at least to me, that they weren't involved.

Following on the work of PD Scott, Newman, Fonzi and others, Simpich has fleshed out the Mexico City operations to a remarkable degree. Sometimes the complications are a bit much for me to follow, with so many names and operational codes to keep track of, but there is lucidity enough for one to get the gist of what he has discovered.

[Paul Trejo]

Now that I have read State Secrets I thought it worthwhile to try to get this thread going again. Hopefully Thomas and Steven will avoid diverting it. They have different but interesting points to make. I also hope Bill Simpich checks in here once in a while, as I mainly want to ask him to clarify and possibly debate his point that Morales ran the assassination without the knowledge of Harvey, Shackley, Phillips, and others higher in the chain of command of CIA like King, Angleton, Dulles, etc.

if I understand Simpich correctly, he thinks that were Phillips involved in hijacking Oswald from covert anti-FPCC operations and helping to set him up as the patsy he would have taken more precautions after the assassination, as he left plenty of clues that might have made him a suspect. Simpich also claimed that In his opinion the most likely suspect to have hijacked Oswald and set him up was Morales, claiming that Morales was experienced enough to know that CIA would cover his tracks rather than risk exposing Mexico City covert surveillance and wiretapping of the Cuban and Soviet embassies and their staffs. I would argue that if anyone knew how to play the system it was Phillips. Wouldn't he likewise have known that he was in no danger of exposure for the same reasons as Morales?

The reason I think this an important question, and thread, is that Simpich has made a very good case for the direct involvement of a cast of CIA and Mafia characters directly related to Operation 40, but seems to think that the operation was basically rogue. In the world of spy craft deniability is built into the system. Not finding adequate proof of orders from Shackley or Harvey or Dulles or Helms, and finding plenty of reasons to doubt their involvement, doesn't prove, at least to me, that they weren't involved.

Following on the work of PD Scott, Newman, Fonzi and others, Simpich has fleshed out the Mexico City operations to a remarkable degree. Sometimes the complications are a bit much for me to follow, with so many names and operational codes to keep track of, but there is lucidity enough for one to get the gist of what he has discovered.

Well, Paul B., you'd like to debate Bill Simpich's point that David Morales ran the assassination without the knowledge of Harvey, Shackley, Phillips, and others higher in the chain of command of CIA like King, Angleton, Dulles, etc. I second the motion. I hope Bill Simpich checks into this thread occasionally, too. His work has set a new course for JFK research in 2014. I'm very impressed by it.

Starting with Gaeton Fonzi's, The Last Investigation (1993), and then proceeding to the Edwin Lopez, The Lopez Report (2003), and then to Joan Mellen's, Farewell to Justice (2005), we arrive in present time to encounter the work of Larry Hancock and Bill Simpich.

Your take on Simpich, Paul B., seems to be that if David Atlee Phillips had been involved in hijacking Oswald from Anti-FPCC operations into a JFK plot, that he would have taken more precautions after the JFK murder, and not left so many clues.

I think that's a fair evaluation of part of Bill Simpich's argument.

You also rightly note that David Morales is the likely CIA Officer to take an active role in FRAMING Lee Harvey Oswald (the way that Guy Banister and other associates of the John Birch Society had been FRAMING Oswald in New Orleans from May 1963 through August 1963).

I also find this same accusation of David Morales in the pages of Bill Simpich's State Secret (2014). David Morales was experienced enough to exploit CIA wire-tapping arrangements for his own purposes.

It's not that David Atlee Phillips was ignorant of how the CIA system worked -- it's the fingerprints that are in question.

I agree with you that Phillips would have been just as wise and bold and David Morales -- if he wanted to be -- but where are the fingerprints? On the other hand, we have David Morales' fingerprints in the sense that his pal, Reuben Carbajal, tells of Morales' personal confession that he was part of the JFK Kill-Team.

Phillips, going by his own word, was trying to exploit Lee Harvey Oswald to murder Fidel Castro, but Oswald got "diverted" from that task into the role of Patsy in one of many JFK murder plots. That's not a "fingerprint" in my book.

We agree, Paul B., that Bill Simpich makes a solid case for the direct involvement of a cast of CIA and Mafia characters directly related to Operation 40 -- and that Simpich regards the operation as basically Rogue.

You're right that we have no final proof that the CIA high-command wasn't involved, and so the door must remain open. Yet there is no proof of CIA high-command involvement, and ample evidence of this Rogue-level involvement in the JFK murder. So we should just be running with the known evidence, IMHO, to see how far it can take us.

I also agree with you, Paul B., that Bill Simpich has supplied remarkable, admirable detail regarding the Mexico City episode of the Lee Harvey Oswald story. Here is the new starting point for all future JFK research, IMHO.

As you know, the reason that I favor the "Rogue" theory of CIA involvement, is because I maintain that the JFK Kill-Team was a Civilian Team, with a few CIA players on the side. I insist on this, because the predominant theory of the past forty years (i.e. that the CIA high-command was behind the JFK murder) has totally distracted research from the REAL KILLERS.

The REAL KILLERS, in my opinion, were members of a Civilian group of radical reactionaries who preached widely that JFK (like FDR, Truman and Ike before him) was a conscious, deliberate agent of the Communist Conspiracy.

This reactionary team, led by Edwin Walker and Guy Banister, mostly sported big talk from 1961 forward. But when this reactionary team (in my theory) finally obtained the ground-crew support of David Morales -- the professional level of the JFK Kill-Team took a great leap forward.

The actual murder of JFK was the part of that plot which succeeded with great efficiency. It worked great, mostly because David Morales was a world-class expert in political assassination, with years of successful hits in his resume.

But the ultimate purpose of the JFK Kill-Team, I say, was ultimately thwarted by J. Edgar Hoover and his Lone Nut theory of the JFK murder.

The JFK Kill-Team spent tons of energy from May 1963 through August 1963 to FRAME Lee Harvey Oswald as an officer of a fake FPCC in New Orleans. David Morales (according to Bill Simpich) added the icing on the cake in Mexico City, when by this wire-tapped *impersonation* of Lee Harvey Oswald, he linked the name of Oswald to the name of KGB Agent Valery Kostikov.

The purpose was clear -- months of effort in New Orleans attempted to FRAME a Communist for the murder of JFK. This was intended to inspire the USA to invade Cuba and take back Cuba from the Communists. If David Morales had been successful with his Mexico City *impersonation* of Lee Harvey Oswald, nobody could have questioned that the JFK murder was a Communist plot.

But the JFK Kill-Team failed in their ultimate goal to re-take Cuba. They succeeded in killing JFK, but they did not get what they ultimately wanted -- Cuba.

The Cover-up Team, led by J. Edgar Hoover, saw to that. For forty years JFK reseachers have failed to distinguish between the Kill-Team and the Cover-up Team in the JFK murder. Jim Garrison was probably the first to set this error in motion.

But once we carefully separate the Kill-Team (LHO was a Red) from the Cover-up Team (LHO was a Lone-Nut) then we can see clearly toward a resolution of the ground-crew and the identification of the principals of the JFK murder plot.

Bill Simpich has made a giant step in this direction -- in my opinion -- by showing a major split inside the CIA -- those who started a mole-hunt and the actual, rightist moles themselves who *impersonated* Lee Harvey Oswald in order to FRAME him as a Communist.

We are that much closer to solving the JFK murder -- finally -- after a half-century.

Regards,

--Paul Trejo

<edit typos>

Edited September 17, 2014 by Paul Trejo

[Paul Brancato]

Appreciate all your work. But - you use words like 'proof' and 'rogue' often, and you sometimes misstate what authors have said, as in the case of Hancock, who by no means has concluded that Morales' superiors weren't involved.

Eye witness statements, like for instance Carbajal, and Dean, are not proof. You just choose, as you yourself have stated often, to believe them. I would suggest that you curtail the use of the word 'proof' when quoting eye witnesses.

As for rogue, lack of documented proof of chain of command involvement does not equal rogue. You just choose to believe it does. You are free to so choose.

One more thing - I would find your posts more readable if you would not repeat your theory in detail when you post. I've read it dozens of times, and my eyes glaze over. I am interested in what you have to say, but don't need constant reprises of your working theory. I say this with due respect.

[Paul Trejo]

Appreciate all your work. But - you use words like 'proof' and 'rogue' often, and you sometimes misstate what authors have said, as in the case of Hancock, who by no means has concluded that Morales' superiors weren't involved.

Eye witness statements, like for instance Carbajal, and Dean, are not proof. You just choose, as you yourself have stated often, to believe them. I would suggest that you curtail the use of the word 'proof' when quoting eye witnesses.

As for rogue, lack of documented proof of chain of command involvement does not equal rogue. You just choose to believe it does. You are free to so choose.

One more thing - I would find your posts more readable if you would not repeat your theory in detail when you post. I've read it dozens of times, and my eyes glaze over. I am interested in what you have to say, but don't need constant reprises of your working theory. I say this with due respect.

Your advice is duly noted, Paul B. As for my writing style, I've designed it for the Internet, where I expect hundreds of readers -- at different levels of reading background -- to encounter the thread.

So, I ask for your patience as I address my responses to you also to newbies and other readers.

As for the word, 'proof,' should I repeat again that I don't find enough proofs for my theory (or for any theory) yet?

When I say PROOF in the context of the current thread, though, I find it astounding that Bill Simpich has covered the ground of the Mexico City wire-tapping episode with such scientific rigor -- and nobody else had ever done this.

The mountain of detail -- the thorough and critical treatment he provides to the reader -- is tantamount to an Island of hard facts in an ocean of soft speculation.

Until somebody demonstrates that Bill Simpich's Mexico City findings are mistaken, I'm inclined to say that Bill Simpich has PROVED that the CIA was divided with regard to the Mexico City *impersonation* of Lee Harvey Oswald. This is PROOF, in my theory, that the left hand of the CIA did not know what its extreme right hand was doing regarding the JFK murder.

As for Larry Hancock, I never claimed that he's discounted the POSSIBILITY of the participation of Morales' superiors in the JFK murder -- but I do notice that he has not ACCUSED any of Morales' superiors in the JFK murder, either!

As you may recall, I was ready to accuse General Ed Lansdale of a JFK conspiracy on the evidence provided by Colonel Fletcher Prouty, and by the appearance of Ed Lansdale in photographs in Dealey Plaza (with the three tramps) shortly after the murder of JFK. Yet it was Larry Hancock who dissuaded me from that conclusion. I am now officially on the fence with regard to Lansdale, because I don't have a ready answer for Larry Hancock.

Larry Hancock, for his part, seems to be straddling the fence himself on this question -- however, on the topic of Bill Simpich and his findings in State Secret (2014), I don't see Larry Hancock straddling the fence. It seems to me that Larry is "all in" with Bill Simpich on this score.

Regards,

--Paul Trejo

<edit typos>

Edited September 17, 2014 by Paul Trejo

[Thomas Graves]

[...]

As you know, the reason that I favor the "Rogue" theory of CIA involvement is because I maintain that the JFK Kill-Team was a Civilian Team, with a few CIA players on the side.

[...]

It's my understanding that the CIA used "civilians" to do its really dirty work.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but Mafia hit men are "civilians", aren't they?

(I suppose Richard Cain would fall into his own special category...)

James Jesus Angleton's working relationship with the Mafia, through his old Operation Gladio connections as well as via George White at the Federal Bureau of Narcotics, comes to mind in this context.

I believe I read somewhere that it might have had something to do with the CIA's general policy of "plausible deniability"...

--Tommy

Edited September 16, 2014 by Thomas Graves

[Paul Trejo]

It's my understanding that the CIA used "civilians" to do its really dirty work.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but Mafia hit men are "civilians", aren't they?

(I suppose Richard Cain would fall into his own special category...)

James Jesus Angleton's working relationship with the Mafia, through his old Operation Gladio connections as well as via George White at the Federal Bureau of Narcotics, comes to mind in this context.

I believe I read somewhere that it might have had something to do with the CIA's general policy of "plausible deniability"...

--Tommy

It's not impossible, Tommy -- and no doubt some Mafia people were involved in the murder of JFK, as we have some evidence from mercenary Loran Hall ("there's only me and Santos Traficante still alive...") and of course we have the personal confession of Johnny Roselli.

We also have ample evidence that Mafia kingfish Carlos Marcello of New Orleans donated tons of money to any Kill-JFK plot that he heard about, but more urgently, he was directly working with Guy Banister and David Ferrie even on the very day of the JFK murder.

Yet it seems most clear to me that the main role that the Mafia played was for its Big Dons to throw mega-bucks at the JFK plot. They provided millions of dollars. In this respect they were very much like any Texas oil millionaires who may have been involved. They were among the biggest Financiers.

Yet when I think of a Civilian plot to murder JFK, I think of a fringe political group of wackos who were outspoken about overthrowing the US Government, and specifically JFK, because they were convinced that JFK was a COMMUNIST.

These were the Leaders of the JFK Kill-Team, it seems to me. It also seems to me that this dimension receives far too little attention in the 400 books on the JFK murder than have been published in the past several decades.

Only in the Warren Commission volumes do we see the proper amount of attention being paid to the resigned Major General Edwin A. Walker in connection with the JFK murder, as well as the John Birch Society and their unmistakable role in the JFK: WANTED FOR TREASON handbills that circulated in Dallas on 11/22/1963 (as well as one month earlier, on 10/23/1963, when General Walker was plotting the sabotage of Adlai Stevenson's UN speech in Dallas).

The John Birch Society -- according to the Warren Commission -- also played the leading role in the full-page black-bordered Ad (WELCOME, MR. KENNEDY, TO DALLAS) that appeared in the Dallas Morning News on 11/22/1963. Their bold, unashamed, strident defiance of JFK and of common sense was highlighted in Warren Commission testimony from Bernard Schwarz, Robert Allen Surrey and several others involved in the handbills and the DMN Ad.

As I recall, Joan Mellen wrote in her, Farewell to Justice (2005) that Carlos Marcello's hotels hosted Edwin Walker, Guy Banister and David Morales, along with other rightist fanatics, during September of 1963, and a very young Thomas Edward Beckham heard them discussing the JFK murder at those meetings.

It seems to me that the direct participation of the Mafia in the actual ground-crew (aside from the Financiers) would have started with Johnny Roselli, and would have been supervised by David Morales and his team. (Perhaps this was your point, Tommy, that the Mafia in their limited role reported to the CIA players).

But in my view, the Mafia was a bit-player in the JFK murder. Jim Garrison seems to have demonstrated that fully. Guy Banister was not in the Mafia -- and he played the lead role in New Orleans regarding the key strategy of FRAMING Lee Harvey Oswald to be the Patsy for the plot.

The Mafia may have reported to David Morales; but Guy Banister didn't report to David Morales; Edwin Walker didn't report to David Morales; nor did the Minutemen, the DPD or any Dallas players, without whom the JFK murder plot would have remained one more day of big talk.

Regards,

--Paul Trejo

<edit typos>

Edited September 16, 2014 by Paul Trejo

[Paul Brancato]

Paul - since you have decided to ignore my advice I have decided to stop reading your posts. You imagine that there are a world of readers out there who chance by the forum, and that you are in a unique position to convince them of your theory. How very presumptuous of you, and very boring.

[Paul Trejo]

BUMP

Edited September 17, 2014 by Paul Trejo

[Paul Trejo]

Paul - since you have decided to ignore my advice I have decided to stop reading your posts. You imagine that there are a world of readers out there who chance by the forum, and that you are in a unique position to convince them of your theory. How very presumptuous of you, and very boring.

That's your right, Paul B. Yet I will conclude our debates by noting that you haven't offered a convincing argument against my position.

You say you offer a deck of trading cards listing the JFK murder plot suspects -- and I can only imagine that you regard the CIA Officers in your deck to have a higher value -- or at least your hierarchy isn't the same as mine.

Perhaps, if you were persuaded by my theory, you would have to re-organize your deck of cards, and perhaps that would be too much labor. Or maybe not.

In any case, your case for a CIA plot to kill JFK is based only on political bias, and not on solid evidence. That's my final word on it.

Regards,

--Paul Trejo

[Paul Trejo]

This is the proper thread in which to communicate my opinion about Bill Simpich's new book, "State Secret," (2014).

The broad consensus of JFK research before 2014 was an echo of work done by Jim Garrison, Mark Lane and Joan Mellen, and their conclusion that the CIA is probably the main source of planning and coordination of the JFK murder.

In my opinion, the breakthrough by Bill Simpich this year shakes up our basic assumptions. Simpich reveals with careful precision, that the CIA top leaders were clueless about who had *impersonated* Lee Harvey Oswald over a wire-tapped line in Mexico City on 28 September 1963 -- but they knew it wasn't Oswald -- so they started a mole-hunt to find out who knew enough about CIA methods to effect this *impersonation*.

As late as 2008 James De Eugenio thought that the FBI was the first entity to recognize that the voice on that wire-tapped recording was not Lee Harvey Oswald. Yet Bill Simpich showed that the CIA Chief in Mexico City knew that it wasn't Oswald -- within MINUTES of that consulate-to-consulate phone call and its immediate transcription.

The purport of that phone call was an attempt to link the name of Lee Harvey Oswald with the name of KGB Agent Valery Kostikov. It was a fabrication. It was yet another effort to FRAME Oswald, shortly after his New Orleans FRAMING.

Insofar as Bill Simpich has demonstrated that the CIA started a mole-hunt that very hour (and altered Oswald's 201 file), JFK researchers are faced with a new dilemma -- explaining why the CIA high-command was ignorant of that plot to FRAME Lee Harvey Oswald for the murder of JFK.

Perhaps it isn't widely recognized yet, but Bill Simpich has undercut the key assumption among JFK researchers -- the assumption that the CIA top command was in charge of the JFK murder and the framing of Lee Harvey Oswald for it.

I salute Bill Simpich for this courageous breakthrough. Further, Bill offered his interpretation of these facts only tentatively, in the interest of sharing the facts with the public ASAP. He wrote in Chapter 5:

"...Now let me offer a hypothesis that provides what I call the Mexico City solution to the suppression of Oswald’s connections to Cuba, why the assassination was covered up -- and, just maybe, an important insight into the assassination itself...What is presented here will not answer all the questions, but it offers a working solution that is based on the facts that we know...The reader is invited to join in, contribute, and add to this body of research. There’s more to learn, and I could be wrong, but I think I have the gist of it right." (Bill Simpich, 2014, STATE SECRET, Ch. 5)

I note that Bill offers his interpretation humbly, so I can't be very critical of his position when he reaches out in his final speculation on the *motives* of the impersonators and as he terms it, "why the assassination was covered up." I regard the following as the weaker part of Bill's theory:

"Whoever imitated Oswald on the telephone in Mexico City knew that such a paper trail would be a powerful way to blackmail the involved CIA and FBI officers after November 22 into deep-sixing any serious investigation of the assassination -– even an internal inquiry that could be hushed up on the grounds of 'national security.' If it went public that these officers had used the Oswald legend for a molehunt prior to the assassination, the result would be not only embarrassment or a security breach, but suspicion that they were involved in the assassination itself. At a minimum, it would mean the end of the careers of these officers. The impact on their families and their agencies would be devastating." (Bill Simpich, 2014, STATE SECRET, Ch. 5)

It seems to me that the issue of National Security just doesn't fit the disaster that Bill Simpich names: "the end of the careers of these officers."

I doubt that the CIA would botch the murder investigation of a US President in order to save a few jobs of a few CIA people. Yet Bill urges that, "the impact on their families and their agencies would be devastating." To a few people, certainly, but not to National Security.

Therefore, the theory offered by Bill Simpich, namely, BLACKMAIL, hasn't been satisfactorily demonstrated by his argument. I think that a better explanation is simply that the *impersonators* thought they could get away with linking the name of Lee Harvey Oswald with the name of notorious KGB Agent, Valery Kostikov.

As I see it, there were three stories that hit the street on 11/22/1963 -- almost immediately.

(1) The first story was voiced by Bernard Weissman in his Warren Commission testimony about his opinion in the first minutes after CBS announced the death of JFK, namely, that the Right-wing had murdered JFK. Weissman used the name of Ex-General Edwin Walker openly in this context. This is also what Jack Ruby told to Chief Justice Earl Warren. Many Americans thought this immediately (according to Professor David R. Wrone). This, IMHO, was the truth about what actually happened.

(2) The second story was that the Left-wing murdered JFK. This was plain as soon as Lee Harvey Oswald was presented on TV as the main suspect. He was "a Communist." (This was the cover story carefully created by the JFK Kill Team.)

(3) The third story was that Lee Harvey Oswald was a "Lone Nut," and was the "Lone shooter" at JFK, and "had no accomplices." That story was presented by J. Edgar Hoover himself, before the sun set on 11/22/1963, meant to prevent the other two stories from gaining traction, and thereby leading to extreme violence and perhaps Civil War.

The first story, however, seemed to fizzle into nothingness one day after Lee Harvey Oswald was identified as a Communist and a Castro supporter, because TV began showing film footage of Oswald in New Orleans passing out FPCC leaflets during the previous summer, and news about Oswald getting arrested because of a street fight with Carlos Bringuier, and appearing on radio and TV because of his FPCC antics. All of this filled the mass media just about continuously.

So two stories remained on 11/23/1963. Those who insisted that the Communists murdered JFK were outspoken well into 1964, adding that we must invade Cuba right away, kill Fidel Castro and take back Cuba for the Free World. Among them were Frank Sturgis, Johnny Roselli, John Martino, David Morales (via some shills he set up to feed the mass media) as well as Carlos Bringuier, Ed Butler, Billy James Hargis, Ex-General Edwin Walker (even to the Warren Commission), Guy Gabaldon, Loran Hall and others within the John Birch Society.

The third story, that Lee Harvey Oswald was nothing but a Lone Nut, was pushed hard by the US Government, and won the day. Those who argued for stories #1 and #2 faded away (for a half-century).

Instead of BLACKMAIL, I propose that whoever *impersonated* Duran and Oswald on a wire-tapped telephone in Mexico City believed that such a media trail would convince the CIA and FBI that Lee Harvey Oswald was in league with KGB Agent Valery Kostikov. With that connection, the US Government might have concluded that the Communists killed JFK, and that we should immediately commit military forces to war against Cuba and the USSR.

In my opinion, the US Government figured this out very early -- perhaps within an hour of the arrest of Lee Harvey Oswald. They knew exactly who the JFK murderers were -- but rather than risk Civil War, they decided to cover-up the JFK murder for 75 years.

Yet, getting back to Bill Simpich's new book -- I believe he demonstrated firm evidence (if not final proof) that the CIA was divided within itself on this topic. Some CIA people were involved in a plot to kill JFK, and some were not. Those who were not, apparently, started a mole-hunt.

Now, only the CIA high-command could start a mole-hunt. This is solid evidence, then, that the CIA Officers who participated in the JFK murder were actually ROGUES. That is the result of Bill Simpich's book, by my reading.

It's a major breakthrough, and it obliges most JFK researchers to go back to the drawing board.

Best regards,

--Paul Trejo

<edit typos>

Edited September 22, 2014 by Paul Trejo